Author: James T. Walker
Date: 05:45:45 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 08:15:32, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >I think a men vs. machine match constellation is rarely good for the human. >Adams plays his best attacking style but is outplayed by the computer. Great >performance by Hydra, and maybe a bit of bad luck for Adams. >But let's imagine an other scenario. What if Adams had played well prepared >anti-computer strategy, won one game (and the match) on time at move 257 and >drew all the other games? After the match some happy anti-computer specialists >would cry yes!, he did it. But the major part of the (non-computer) chess fans >would not be satified with the match (maybe even disgusted). Maybe also Adams >would not be proud of his performance. There would be always the question what >would have been if he played a more attacking (and more interesting) chess >match? > >I think that's why Adams choose to go down proudly playing his (maybe not) best >attacking style. If he wins, he is the hero. If he wins with sneaky play, the he >is the guy who won the boring match. Ergo there is more to win with attractive >play. And most GMs want to play attractive (or what they consider attractive, >even if it's the Berlin defense). And they want to win. > >regards >Andy I think you are right on target. Also I think that people have to "go with what got them there". People already are set in their style and have their pet opening(s) that they are most familiar with. If they try something different they will usually perform worse. Also it's hard to "book up" on Hydra without having a good history to refer to. I mean with GMs you can search for all their games and get a feel for what they do best and what they are not so good at.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.